NEWS
Global warming intensifies
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Yana Paskova:
- Paul Ryan reintroduces Social Security privatization package in House (April 22, 2005)
- Woman dies in apartment on Langdon (April 27, 2005)
- Capitol hosts first 'State of the Tribes' address (March 9, 2005)
- State to appoint Taser committee (February 24, 2005)
- Assembly passes property tax freeze pushed by Republicans (February 18, 2005)
Related Stories:
- UW hosts climate change conference (October 24, 2007)
- Scientists await global study (February 1, 2007)
- Global warming pollution 'skyrocketing' (April 13, 2007)
- UW scientist presents climate study (December 12, 2005)
- Lecture: 'The world has warmed' (October 15, 2008)
Share This:
by Yana Paskova
Monday, November 15, 2004
Global warming is liquefying the Arctic two times faster than it is heating the rest of the planet in what may be an omen for worldwide climate disasters in the next century, according to an eight-nation study released last week.
The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report, funded by the United States, Canada, Russia, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Norway and Finland, projects that human emissions of heat-trapping gases will greatly intensify global warming and climbing sea levels by 2100.
The Arctic climate could become four to seven Celsius degrees warmer over the next century, which would thaw half of the region’s summer ice and a major part of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Greenland alone contains enough melt water to elevate sea levels by about 23 feet.
Kert Davies, research director for Greenpeace USA, said the Arctic situation should alarm the rest of the world that disruptions to the North Pole’s environment could affect the entire planet.
He compared the North Pole to a “canary in a coal mine,” referring to coal miners’ ancient practice of testing the level of dangerous gases in mines by releasing a canary underground. If the bird died, the miners knew the gases would kill them, too.
Davies said most people do not realize a shift of a few degrees would shake the scales of the planet’s ecosystem.
“Our climate is delicately balanced, just like our bodies that like to stay at 98.6 degrees,” he said. “And you feel kind of sick even if your temperature is only 100.6 degrees.”
An escalating barometer would melt at least half of Arctic summer sea ice by the end of this century, the report said. This could lead to the extinction of some animal species, such as ice-living seals and polar bears, and would endanger local people who hunt seals for food.
Richard Lindroth, a University of Wisconsin professor of entomology, zoology and member of the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, said the reduction of Arctic ice would perpetuate the warming cycle. Since ice reflects light, less ice means the surrounding areas would absorb more of the sun’s energy and heat up more quickly, raising sea levels even more.
Higher sea levels would affect American cities in ways similar to the Hollywood movie, “The Day after Tomorrow,” according to Sierra Club representative Eric Uram. Coastal cities would plunge underwater, and mounting temperatures would disturb much of agriculture. Warmer summers and shorter winters could eventually transform weather in places like Wisconsin to a Mexico-like climate, he said.
“How many times do we have to have this repeated from a qualified scientific body?” Uram said. “We’re holding the gun and we have the ability to either pull the trigger, or not.”
Davies said the Bush administration opposition to signing the Kyoto protocol prevents America from adequately dealing with global warming.
“It’s like he shifted back 10 years to his father’s principles on voluntary action,” Davies said of the president’s call for businesses to self-regulate their greenhouse gas emissions.
He added the ACIA report has shown this is a “ridiculous platform,” since the country now knows to act on global warming.
Anonymous (November 15, 2004 @ 9:22am):
It's an evil plot to drown those on the liberal coasts!
Anonymous (November 15, 2004 @ 10:16am):
Why didn't the reporter contact anyone from CFACT to balance the "facts" of this story? This is horrible reporting. I expect better from the Badger Herald.
Anonymous (November 15, 2004 @ 2:07pm):
CFACT's two-part response can be found here:
http://www.cfactcampus.org/madison/journal_comments.asp?JournalID=61
I invite Badger Herald editors and reporters to contact CFACT for balanced opinions on future environmental articles.
Nick Pongratz
Upper Midwest Regional Director
Collegians For A Constructive Tomorrow
http://cfactcampus.org/madison/
Anonymous (November 15, 2004 @ 2:11pm):
CFACT's two-part response can be found here:
http://www.cfactcampus.org/madison/journal_comments.asp?JournalID=61
I invite Badger Herald editors and reporters to contact CFACT for balanced opinions on future environmental articles.
Nick Pongratz
Upper Midwest Regional Director
Collegians For A Constructive Tomorrow
http://cfactcampus.org/madison/
Anonymous (November 15, 2004 @ 3:43pm):
Maybe I shouldn't have set my lawn on fire, but it was just time for those gnomes to BURN.
Anonymous (November 15, 2004 @ 4:23pm):
Why didn't the Badger Herald contact CFACT? Probably because your website condones the use of DDT, hunting rhinos, and believes that global warming is not a by-product of human activity. The CFACT website is not subjective, it is biased and seems to be against anything that is done to protect or better the environment. nuff said.
Anonymous (November 15, 2004 @ 9:35pm):
Yeah, we need more objective opinions like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club...
Anonymous (November 18, 2004 @ 8:22pm):
It's kind of ironic that all you CFACT supporters who wanted to see their voice in this "horrible" article are the same people who think Bush has a "solid environmental record" (see CFACT's website.) It's also ironic that you think including their opinions will make this article objective. The article covers the findings from the ACIA report and what those people involved had to say about it, so no, that doesn't include CFACT!! I am very happy to see that some reporters still believe that journalists shouldn't feel compelled to chase a painfully superficial standard of balance and objectivity by sticking to a "she said, but he said" outline, even when it doesn't fit in with their article.
